On Fri, 2015-02-13 at 11:11 -0500, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:39:25AM -0500, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:

> >> Any sanity checks for distances?
> >>
> >
> > The same applies, what is a valid distance what is not? I guess zero is
> > not valid? Or do we enforce that the distance to local node must be
> > smaller than or equal to the distance to remote node?
> 
> Yes, I think the second condition is enough for strict checking.
> 
That would not harm, probably but I honestly would not put down much
enforcement on distance values. We can enforce non-zero values, we can
enforce local < remote, we can enforce the symmetry of the distance
matrix, but, really, I wouldn't go that far.

What matters most wrt specification of the distances, is to provide a
sane default, in case one does not want to bother writing it down (or
does not want to write it down completely, as it could be tedious).

So, if one does not say anything, we should come up with something that
makes sense (and I'll say more about this while reviewing patch 24). If
the user does say something, I would just go with that... perhaps after
printing a warning, but no more than that.

Regards,
Dario